Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 14:46:13 GMT -5
If this list actually plays out this way, then I'd wager a bet that 20 years down the road, Russia will be just fine energy wise, while other countries who are "reviewing or shelving" nuclear energy will be behind the curve.
|
|
cael
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 9:12:36 GMT -5
Posts: 5,745
|
Post by cael on Mar 14, 2011 14:55:10 GMT -5
There is a wind farm proposed near me, and it looks like it's going to be shot down by the locals. You'd think that the developers were planning on putting a big glob of uranium in the middle of the town, not a bunch of windmills. NIMBY runs rampant. There's a windfarm going in off Cape Cod (I think it got approved?) and the richie riches who have summer homes complained that the windmills would ruin their view. They would be about a half-inch on the horizon for the idiots.
|
|
kgb18
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 8:15:23 GMT -5
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by kgb18 on Mar 14, 2011 15:00:47 GMT -5
I live near both. I'm not close enough to have the crap from the coal plant falling on my house, but I've seen what it does to the houses nearby. There have been numerous times where the Department of Environmental Protection has told people they can't eat the food in their gardens because of stuff from the coal plant covering the area. Their homes always have soot on them. And the byproducts that come from the coal are piped to a huge lake that breeds mosquitoes not common to this area, and it burns to breath near the lake. Most people have moved away from the area of the containment lake. There are a lot of vacant homes just sitting there.
In general the nuclear is a much cleaner process. Yes the potential for disaster in the even of a catastrophic event like an earthquake is worse. But after seeing all the problems with the coal plant, I guess I'll take my chances with the nuclear power.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 15:02:06 GMT -5
There is a wind farm proposed near me, and it looks like it's going to be shot down by the locals. You'd think that the developers were planning on putting a big glob of uranium in the middle of the town, not a bunch of windmills. NIMBY runs rampant. There's a windfarm going in off Cape Cod (I think it got approved?) and the richie riches who have summer homes complained that the windmills would ruin their view. They would be about a half-inch on the horizon for the idiots. I generally laugh at stuff like that....just as you're doing. However, would you have the same attitude IF you were the "richie riches" with the summer home on the beach? You've got to think about that before you label it as stupid. I would still say it's stupid either way, but far to many people just think "Oh they're rich and whining" only because they themselves can't imagine ever having a house like that.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Mar 14, 2011 15:03:58 GMT -5
I support nuclear energy 100% and would love to see some nuclear plants constructed. That said I live a few miles from the beach on the west coast so the reality is that they likely wouldn't be going in around me since we had a tsunami warning due to the quake last week. It's sad that like budget cuts nuclear plants are something that people might support but just not if they possibly affect them. These days it seems like this country is better at talking a good game rather than actually following through with what needs to be done which is sad. If we sit on our hands and do nothing we'll be in a crappy position as the developing world watches their energy usage increase at a faster rate than ours, prices go up and we have no alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 15:06:16 GMT -5
They're building a solar plant out near my mom, and there was an opposition group to it too. They're putting it way outside of town so you'd have to drive out to see it anyway, but people didn't want the eye sore near them. Keep in mind the place we're talking about looks like this: An eye sore? Are you kidding me? A land fill would be an improvement. Exactly. Scientific American did a story that a solar farm that was 30,000 square miles, covering land like that in the southwest, could provide most of the energy needs of the entire country. Add to that the roof top solar units that could be used, especially in cities and we could provide not only most of our electricity needs, but 90% of ALL of our energy needs............................
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 14, 2011 16:12:45 GMT -5
Sure is, until you lived though it. Have you? Bc I have.
You want to know how I live my life? I'll tell you - I try to avoid fatal accidents to the best of my abilities. Not living "next door' to a nuclear plant would fall under "trying to avoid it"
And btw, do you lock your car door or your house door? Do you look both ways when you cross the street? See what I am getting at?
Lena
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 16:53:33 GMT -5
Sure is, until you lived though it. Have you? Bc I have. You want to know how I live my life? I'll tell you - I try to avoid fatal accidents to the best of my abilities. Not living "next door' to a nuclear plant would fall under "trying to avoid it" And btw, do you lock your car door or your house door? Do you look both ways when you cross the street? See what I am getting at? Lena Ya really wanna compare? Let's see....I live in an area that got hit by Katrina (thankfully I left), Rita (stayed), I've been robbed at gunpoint with the guy sticking a gun in my face and many other "fun" things. Get over yourself thinking you've "lived" a more interesting dangerous life. Most on here have probably lived through just as much and yet they aren't concerned with "POSSIBLE" outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Mar 14, 2011 17:22:09 GMT -5
Sure is, until you lived though it. Have you? Bc I have. You want to know how I live my life? I'll tell you - I try to avoid fatal accidents to the best of my abilities. Not living "next door' to a nuclear plant would fall under "trying to avoid it" And btw, do you lock your car door or your house door? Do you look both ways when you cross the street? See what I am getting at? Lena In risk assessment methodology, you have to look at both severity and probability. The severity of a nuclear meltdown in your backyard is very high. The probability is extremely low, making it not particularly risky. The severity of getting hit by a car is very high. The probability of getting hit by a car is medium to low. It's easy to mitigate the risk of getting hit by a car, therefore you look both ways before you cross the street, hand signal when you're on a bike, etc. But you don't avoid crossing the street altogether.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 14, 2011 18:22:50 GMT -5
Calm down a bit. Your response, both illogical and irrelevant, leaves not much for me to say.
None of my responses said or implied anything about dangers of my life, only said that I have less than zero interest living next to nuclear plant.
Oh, and btw, I don't make my decisions based on what others do or don't do or their concerns. I am weird like that
Lena
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 19:14:11 GMT -5
Prime location?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 14, 2011 19:40:28 GMT -5
With that logic, should we cut down on flying & airplanes? The frequency of something happening to an airplane far exceeds that of a nuclear plant. I lived under a flight path in London [almost all of London is under a flight path] and felt fine with it. I grew up less than 40 miles from a nuclear plant that is outside of Philly. I also felt fine with that...besides my third nipple that nobody sees. [/size]
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 14, 2011 20:52:44 GMT -5
Ms. Chanandler Bong, why yes, yes I am. I Friends
|
|
domeasingold
Established Member
Joined: Apr 12, 2011 16:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 255
|
Post by domeasingold on Mar 14, 2011 21:44:38 GMT -5
Don't you think the recent lesson will just add to the safety factor built in to the design of future power stations. Who would of thought they would experience a natural disaster of the proportions we have just witnessed. 9.0 earthquake...the systems in place survived and continued to function. 30-40 foot tsunami 30 minutes after the quake... everything wiped out. Tell me, what else to they have to build a contigency for? What else could be a worse test? Humans cannot react quickly enough and you don't just throw a switch to shut these off. Nuclear energy is the most efficient source right now. It will take several more decades to replace.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 22:07:27 GMT -5
With that logic, should we cut down on flying & airplanes? Well, expat, it is certainly something to think about, but please .... please start your own thread about that, do not distract from the topic here! ...besides my third nipple that nobody sees. Another off topic distraction, but at least this one contains some real interesting info. You got a third one as well?
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 22:19:32 GMT -5
Well, just under 20% of the U.S. power consumption is from nuclear: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.htmlNow, if we reduce the consumption by 20%, we could turn them all off. 20% should be easily possible, the way energy is consumed. One way is increasing prices, LOL, by say 20-30%. That would probably do it. Now, in the end, the cost would be about the same to everyone. There would be a real benefit to that. Nuclear pwr plants are also a problem in terms of the radioactive waste, and a possible target for terrorism, not only because they can blow up. Saving 20% energy? Now that's just crazy.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 22:22:56 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 14, 2011 22:46:22 GMT -5
I think you're statistic is proof at how idiotic our energy policies have been and behind the curve we are on energy. There is no reason we shouldn't be getting >80% of our energy from nuclear like France is right now. If you were to reduce energy usage by 20%, would you also be willing to take a 20% hit to production, to country GDP, to your living standards? There is a correlation between production and energy usage [not necessarily 1 for 1]. Increasing costs of energy by 20-30% for no other reason but to try and control a persons usage??? Al Gore, is that you? [/size]
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 23:10:30 GMT -5
Expat, do you really have a third one? It's not fair to start that topic, and then to give no more details. Yes, I'd be willing to cut back on my consumption as a whole (or call it standard of living). A good standard of living does not necessarily mean wasting energy, no? And, btw, a 20% overall cut back could be done without cutting back production. Really. One question I think nobody can really answer is if coal or gas as an energy source is better or worse in the long run compared to nuclear, aside from accidents. We could work on the hydroelectric power, and combine that with other renewable sources as well as pumping plants / reservoirs. As for this Al Gore guy: I think his electricity consumprion is like 19x or 20x that of the average U.S. household, lol. That guy has got to be kidding. Our house, on the other hand, is at about 60% of the average, and that with electric heat. So I've done my part. you could cover the world with solar panels and still not generate enough power. That's not true, I believe, and does not make much sense when you think about it. Phil, where did you hear that? Any source?
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Mar 14, 2011 23:44:02 GMT -5
Expat, do you really have a third one? It's not fair to start that topic, and then to give no more details. Yes, I'd be willing to cut back on my consumption as a whole (or call it standard of living). A good standard of living does not necessarily mean wasting energy, no? And, btw, a 20% overall cut back could be done without cutting back production. Really. One question I think nobody can really answer is if coal or gas as an energy source is better or worse in the long run compared to nuclear, aside from accidents. We could work on the hydroelectric power, and combine that with other renewable sources as well as pumping plants / reservoirs. As for this Al Gore guy: I think his electricity consumprion is like 19x or 20x that of the average U.S. household, lol. That guy has got to be kidding. Our house, on the other hand, is at about 60% of the average, and that with electric heat. So I've done my part. I heard George W. Ranch house uses about 20% of the average energy....I do think we have two topics.. Putting your Nuclear on the fault line was the problem not the thought about a 9.0 earthquake!!!! Cascading Failures as they have 7.9's and 7.5 over and over again.. Call them after shocks but at that rate .....This was not the latest and did not have a steel outer-shell as the Next Generation Duke plant.. This was a 1967 mark 1.. Hot water systems are all but gone as they are out of date. Bruce Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 8:39:02 GMT -5
Calm down a bit. Your response, both illogical and irrelevant, leaves not much for me to say. None of my responses said or implied anything about dangers of my life, only said that I have less than zero interest living next to nuclear plant. Oh, and btw, I don't make my decisions based on what others do or don't do or their concerns. I am weird like that Lena I'll restate what I said in an earlier post: There are literally millions of ways you could possibly die on any given day. This is FACT regardless of how careful you are or how much you "try to avoid those things". I wasn't trying to get robbed at gunpoint in a nice neighborhood....but I did. It doesn't matter how careful you try to be.....accidents happen. Some are more likely than others. A nuclear plant meltdown is down on the list of possible things going catastrophically wrong on any given day.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 8:57:30 GMT -5
A nuclear plant meltdown is down on the list of possible things going catastrophically wrong on any given day. Sure. But the catastrophic consequences for thousands, or tens of thousands, are up on the list (close #1 maybe?) and it's something that can potentially be 100% avoided. And, there are other threats from nuclear power plants, besides the meltdown that you are talking about. But I agree with you in general. For as long as we keep the nuclear power plants in Texas, and bury the nuclear waste under your house, or at least near your drinking water supply. You think that's always done in "safe" ways? Or that there are even "safe"ways to dispose stuff that will radiate for another 10,000 years?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:09:30 GMT -5
A nuclear plant meltdown is down on the list of possible things going catastrophically wrong on any given day. Sure. But the catastrophic consequences for thousands, or tens of thousands, are up on the list (close #1 maybe?) and it's something that can potentially be 100% avoided. And, there are other threats from nuclear power plants, besides the meltdown that you are talking about. But I agree with you in general. For as long as we keep the nuclear power plants in Texas, and bury the nuclear waste under your house, or at least near your drinking water supply. You think that's always done in "safe" ways? Or that there are even "safe"ways to dispose stuff that will radiate for another 10,000 years? And you know absolutely nothing about where I live. I'm surrounded by coal and natural gas power plants. Our areas chance of getting cancer is about 30% higher than most other places so sure.....I'd take a clean burning nuclear power plant close to me. I'd feel more safe.....but that's just me. Continue whining!
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 15, 2011 9:13:40 GMT -5
what about hydro . there are 26 lock and dams on the mississippi river and five on the red riher that could be converted to produce electric . only one on the mississippi river at mile 304 is currently being used as a hydro electric plant. thats clean electric.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:21:32 GMT -5
what about hydro . there are 26 lock and dams on the mississippi river and five on the red riher that could be converted to produce electric . only one on the mississippi river at mile 304 is currently being used as a hydro electric plant. thats clean electric. I'd certainly be okay with hydroelectric power. However, I'm a long way away from any of those rivers. We do have a rather large river in our town and surrounding areas (runs to the Mississippi)....I'm just not sure it would be conducive to hydroelectric power generation.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 15, 2011 9:24:08 GMT -5
yes but once the power is on the grid can it not go any where?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:27:03 GMT -5
yes but once the power is on the grid can it not go any where? Sure. However, you'd have to think about transmission degradation over very long distances. You're going to lose a lot of that generated power transmitting it so far.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 9:27:59 GMT -5
I'd certainly be okay with hydroelectric power. However, I'm a long way away from any of those rivers. We do have a rather large river in our town and surrounding areas (runs to the Mississippi)....I'm just not sure it would be conducive to hydroelectric power generation. Texan, the secret is a power grid, metal wires that can carry those electrons over thousands of miles at nearly the speed of light with low losses if a high voltage is used.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 18:00:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 9:30:05 GMT -5
I'd certainly be okay with hydroelectric power. However, I'm a long way away from any of those rivers. We do have a rather large river in our town and surrounding areas (runs to the Mississippi)....I'm just not sure it would be conducive to hydroelectric power generation. Texan, the secret is a power grid, metal wires that can carry those electrons over thousands of miles at nearly the speed of light with low losses if a high voltage is used. I'm aware of a "POWER GRID" as you call them ;D They still lose a significant amount of power during the transmission. Edit: This is also why wind power is more widely used. For places that are unable to utilize wind turbines, the energy transmitted over long distances isn't as useful as it is closer to the actual transmission point.
|
|
so1970
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 23:54:13 GMT -5
Posts: 176
|
Post by so1970 on Mar 15, 2011 9:30:29 GMT -5
but they could do the same on the icw the way i understand it as long as there is current it can be turned into power. there is current on the houston ship channel,the icw,the illinois and the red river.
|
|